Labour wants to plunge us into massive debts

The costings of Labour’s programme are off the chart because Labour has made so many expensive pledges or promised so many unaffordable policies. The Conservatives put it at £1200 billion over five years or an extra £240bn a year. That’s a huge tax rise and a colossal borrowing increase.

There is the £196 bn cost of nationalising utility firms and the estimated £85 billion cost of the four day week they propose for starters.

Labour say these costings assume all the ideas and pledges they have told us about in the 2017 Manifesto and since gives the wrong impression because they will do not do all of them. They will get round later in the election campaign to deleting some of the items to make some reduction in the staggering bill.

This is trying to have it both ways. They want some people to vote for them because they are offering them more money or less work or a slice of nationalisation. They will keep the offers out there for longer to draw them in, and hope people do not notice when they cut some.

Given the enormous cost even after they have cut back some proposals they will still be recommending a huge increase in taxes, borrowing and debt. I look forward to seeing Labour’s costing of whatever programme emerges.

We know what happens when a government spends too much and tries to borrow too much. Labour did in in the early 1970s, had to go begging to the IMF for a loan and ended up making big public spending cuts. Labour did it again in 2008-9. They overdid their spending and borrowing and presided over a huge credit expansion, only to have to slash spending during the recession they created. Just look at the poverty in Venezuela and the cuts in Argentina where governments have tried to spend and borrow to excess in recent years.

Don’t let them do it again.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

137 Comments

Without getting too political, Labour is a threat to the UK- Venezuela is such a rich country, at least material wise, and yet, due to a lack of competent leadership in the past 10 years, Venezuela is now in HYPERINFLATION!

Personally, I do not align with either party- but more debt is not an option- it’s already monstrously high!

What percentage of government debt needs refinancing each and every year? Say 10%. So if interest rates were to double – hardly an extreme stress, after five years the interest payment would have increased by 50%. Ignoring shenanigans with the Bank of England’s balance sheet the government would have to sell off public sector assets at fire sale prices to pay back the debt/ avoid the need for refinancing.

Debt should be limited to the governments ‘equity ‘ that is the availability of assets that can be sold off if/when interest rates rise – otherwise we will be in a downward debt spiral

Reply The UK debt is funded relatively long so you have time to adjust the stock before refinancing

I watched Mr. Kwarteng on Sunday, I felt embarrassed for him and your Party. It appears that you, by this piece, and your Party have not been listening. Let me explain once again; we are not so stupid as to believe ANY political parties’ estimates or promises, and we are very angry at having to hear blatant lies. If this is your standard now for promoting the Conservative Party then you had better prepare to lose.

BTW, if correctly reported that Mr Johnson has ‘promised’ not to extend the ‘transition period’ beyond December 2020, in order to get TBP to back down on standing candidates, then, if it we’re me, I’d ask what happened with Mr Johnson’s recent Brexit promises and decide if his word was worth anything at all.

Peter, as you indicate, trust is the big problem. There are a significant number of voters who do not trust Boris or the Cons Party one bit, and they refuse to be duped this time. I will not listen to the carefully crafted soundbites from Tory politicians (I am not referring to Sir John) as to me they are utterly meaningless.

One person I do listen to and trust is Nigel Farage, and I am enjoying listening to videoclips of some of the key BP candidates. Very impressive and a real breath of fresh air. It would benefit the H of C hugely to have new blood. Unfortunately Boris seems intent on welcoming back Remainers, a decision which defies common sense, unless of course the agenda is to remain very closely allied and controlled by the EU.

Chris, So why has Nigel Farage stood down the Brexit party candidates in all 317 previously held Tory seats? I could understand, for the sake of the country, standing down against Leave Conservatives, but not all.

This would have been understandable, though there would have remained the risk that the Brexit party brand would be toxified by association with the Tories. Perhaps the so called ‘Spartans’ could have been spared – although the conduct of some of the most prominent of
them has been contemptible; Steve Baker is the greatest disappointment. But Bill Cash, for instance, has not, as far as I’m aware, become BJ’s lapdog (though I understand there was the prospect of the Brexit party not standing against him anyway).

How does Magic Boris intend to entice M Barnier to submit to a guillotine? Reports suggest M Barnier expects to continue to negotiate well beyond the end of 2020. That M Barnier would agree to a FTA a la Canada with us being voluntarily bound by WA2 is less believable than that of Labour’s fiscal prudence. The only way to get a genuine FTA with the EU which is of marginal utility, in any case, is to Leave first. Why is the Tory Party not campaigning on this, if they genuine want to be free of the EU?

Forthurst, You ask why the Tory party is not campaigning on the only possible way to leave the EU – complete separation – first? The answer is that most Conservative candidates don’t fully want to leave the EU. Because the only alternative to that conclusion is they still do not recognise the EU as our enemy. And I can no longer believe they are really so naive.

I would suggest adopting our side of the preferred outcome in terms of tariffs, regulations, checks etc at the outset then ratchet changes to the EUs disadvantage against every week they delay and every disadvantage they impose on us.

But then that presupposes our government and negotiators wish us to have any advantage at all.

We should be spending our energy in negotiations with partners that actually offer mutual benefit

I am reminded of the old saying; “Those who live in greenhouses should never throw stones.” 😉

And which Chancellor said that he would to eliminate the deficit by 2015 ? Only to increase it further.

Labour are doing what they do best and what all Socialists do – Promise the earth to gain power. They use the politics of envy, greed and hate. And these tactics work ! They work everywhere they are try them and, eventually, those that fall for them realise the true cost. It is sad that the Conservative Party has, and is, doing the same.

But despite the above, I cannot see a party that is committed to those who wish to work for a living, save, build a business and pass on what they have when they have slipped their mortal coil. All the main parties are, to varying degrees, big State and anti-SME’s.

The Conservatives’ exposure of these appalling figures would be more convincing if they weren’t themselves planning to waste a reported one trillion pounds(even if a ‘guestimate’ ) on their own absurd ‘zero carbon’ legislation

Of course Labour plans to do this as well so we poor voters who challenge the whole climate change and CO2 hysteria are disenfranchised.

Indeed of course they want it both ways (they are politicians after all) and Corbyn/SNP would indeed be an economic disaster. Furthermore higher taxes from the current (highest taxes for 40 years) position will raise less tax not more and cut GDP.

Lifelogic, It is what all governments do. The Normans taxed the English so that they had the wealth to build the castles to keep the English subjugated. Then the Normans used the English as sword fodder to keep continental Norman lands. And ironically modern Remains re-write history to blame the English for the acts of the Norman kings and their French wives.

JR here is your starter for ten. Which political party doubled the national debt from 2010 onwards, continues to deficit spend, despite saying it would stop doing so in 2015, clings on to white elephants like HS2 and a rip off energy deal at Hinkley Point C, while supporting pop groups in Ethiopia?

DRW you are so spot on. JR, again, fails to forget his govt has the worse debt in history which they claimed in previous three elections to be clearing by now! Balance Structural deficit by 2015, then 2020 now dropped! Do not forget Johnson supporting Mayhab’s unfunded trillions of zero carbon clap trap. Highest taxes than the two previous Labour govts! Despite 80/20 cuts versus tax promise, another broken promise.

Johnson releases a video stating the transition will not go past 2020, who is stupid to believe him! Go whistle for the money, Die in a ditch, do or die Johnson.

Because of all this persistent lying and breaking of promises from the Conservatives- is why there are so many former members….and now we are willing to give the Brexit Party a go.

One thing Nigel Farage has always been is consistent and honest!

I’ve met our local Brexit party PPCs for both parts of the borough and they are professional men of the world who believe in their country enough to stand as an MP.

Our current Conservative MP is a “leaver” who voted for Mays deal three times, and I have told him that the Mays treaty could so easily have been voted through to put this country in a state of vassalage, possibly in perpetuity, and he’d have contributed to that end. So I am going to vote for the Brexit Party chap, and live with the consequences.

And I’m not alone with that view, as even in some safe Tory seats, people are prepared to vote for who they think is the best person!

I won’t be voting Labour. I won’t be voting for any of the main parties, as they have all been complicit in ignoring the truth and sidelining democracy. I will vote for anyone but LibLabCon. If there is no alternative then I will spoil my ballot paper.

I see that the Conservative Party and Conservative newspapers are all in full attack mode on Farage and the BP over the weekend and today.

But Farage is quite right the Boris Treaty is appalling, is clearly not Brexit & is nearly as bad as May’s putrid one. Indeed most of it is May’s putrid one. It make the next stages of negotiation much more difficult too. Boris needs to come to some accommodation in the many seats that the Conservatives will clearly never win but Brexit might. No BP accommodation risks another hung parliament or even Corbyn/SNP.

Another hung Parliament is, absurdly, the best, or least worst, outcome. The Brexit party is in its infancy. It needs more time to make an impact. If they can make real progress in this election, then this gives them something to build on in future elections.

(They also need time to construct a distinctive, coherent and sensible policy platform; at present, they are merely a single-issue party, and therefore not a viable alternative government post-Brexit.)

I still believe another hung Parliament will result in a second referendum. Such would be the perfect stage on which the Brexit party can fully expose the Remain parties (LibLabCon and the rest). They are not there yet; tthee is much work to do, and a mighty battle to be fought against the vested interests, but the Brexit party have an opportunity, if they are willing and able.

John, you are wrong. Please catch up with MMT. Spending in a fiat currency is not funded by taxation, and does not require borrowing. You are falling for the Swabian housewife falacy. Provided Labour does not flood the private sector with too much money chasing too few resources, then any amount of spending can be OK.

Ah, MMT or Magic Money Tree. When the hyper-inflation comes we’ll tax is out of existence. Except, no government is ever going to increase tax enough to kill off the inflation as they’ll kill off their election chances with it.

Wilfred, MMT is just another version of Socialist out-of-thin-air money creation and wanton misdirected spending. No government can create more money than the productive capacity of the country without incurring inflation. That has been demonstrated time and time again.

I see today the media is reporting an end to the witch of the military.
We all know this is nonesense as Bliar agreed in the GFA that the IRA would be pardoned but British troops would be hounded.
Another promise to be quietly dropped after the election.

Labour will promise the earth to the young and gullible, and them who want to go back to the 70s with handouts for doing nothing, labour were brought to task after the last GE manifesto were they promised to write off student debt and repayments to the easily lead student , well this time labour won’t be able to con the electorate into saying they are the party of leaving the Eu

The one and only thing I agree with Labour about but they were slow to respond when the Tories said it would cost £100 billion which is untrue as 78% of the debt, i.e. £78 billion is written off anyway so the true cost would be £22 billion. The current system only sees those who do meaningful degrees pay off the debt whilst those doing meaningless degrees pay nothing as they will never earn enough. If this Tory Government had one ounce of common sense and fairness which it clearly doesn’t, it would make all STEMM subjects free on condition they stay and work in this country. As it is the Doctors, Scientists etc. the country needs are unfairly penalised – but only if they are English of course.

Kwasi Kwarteng went on TV yesterday to explain this. He’d done all of Labour’s sums for them. As Labour, rightly, pointed out – its manifesto has not yet been published so these sums are wrong.

There is no doubt that Mr Corbyn would cost us a lot of money. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. Our schools and hospitals are starved of investment. The homeless problem on our streets has exploded. You only deal with knife crime by paying to deal with it. At least Labour is trying to offer solutions while the Tories are offering more tax cuts for billionaires.

Plus of course the Tories won’t reveal the cost of their own spending pledges and they are too scared to published cost estimates for their Brexit.

Andy, You’re probably right to say that the Tories are too scared to publish the cost estimates for Brexit. It would give the game away that their policy over the last half century to keep us subservient to the EU empire has been utterly wrong-headed.

Hasn’t too much damage been done to us for anything to matter much any more?
Collective PTSD.
War without the guns.
At the moment we struggle to keep on the right side of panic at the prospect of Venezuela.
A Tory govt has to be the better choice …for now. But the Tories have been a weak, liberal disaster and sliding still further into the liberal abyss.
Tory wrecking balls are no less effective than Labour’s.
And how do we measure and compare the misery inflicted by both?
One face…three masks ( they say).

Everhopeful, The only reason that a Corbyn led Labour is within sniffing distance of power, is down to the Tory government failing to deliver Leave – a complete separation from the EU. How can they be trusted? And it’s not just the last 3 months under Boris – what were Tory MPs doing backing May for 3 years?

As always with the left give aways are plentiful with someone else stepping into pay the bill. Always forgetting that the productive achieving high earners they suggest will pay, have left the country. This leaves the only option of high borrowings massive debt for future generations – the standard contradiction.

We haven’t yet managed to pay down Gordon Browns Labour debts yet.

To add to the contradiction, my understanding is that staying in the EU means obeying their undemocratic fiscal policy. So both Labour and the Liberal Un Democratic parties are making promises their rulers won’t permit.

It’s about time all election promises became laws, with the responsibility of costs falling on the selected – maybe the we would get some honesty

All promises should have a warning ‘Governments dont have their own money they only have access to your wallet!’

Indeed but let he without sin cast the first stone. For the whole of the time you have been in power you have increased our debt and broken or amended promise after promise to get our current account into balance.

Now you plan, I have no doubt responding to Labour, to hose the economy with money, again with the usual promises about economic cycles etc to fool us into thinking you are being prudent. I will mention Crossrail once again to demonstrate the reality.

We don’t believe you and neither, I see today, does big business warning against it.

I was there in the 1970s, cowering over a black and white telly about 9″ square with my wife and two children, taking a bus to school where I taught and unable to afford a car. The IMF still worked then and we were able to borrow. The banks, too, still worked well and had reserves, as did we.
Now things are terribly different. People expect a lot more – holidays of a lifetime every year, enormous tellies and superlative food. Worse, the banks are not what they were with fractional reserves and the 2008 crisis swept neatly under the carpet (I wonder how much of the fractional reserves are still tied up in those useless mortgages for instance in Italy?).
When the crash comes, we are going to be caught swimming without bathing trunks.
We do not need Labour to accelerate the process, thank you.

Mike S, We didn’t have a 9″ square telly to cower over, we had candles to cower over because of the power cuts. I don’t think our children believe us when they spot our box of candles from Labour’s 1970s.

This Labour is Communism, impure and simplistic It has never worked anywhere because it goes against human nature. As you say no Labour government has ever shown any financial competence, managing to leave the country bankrupt whenever they are let in. If the UK electorate swallow their message they deserve all they get.

The real question is can we believe the Conservative alternative via a WA2, the bastard son of May’s WA1, unacceptable to the DUP, that does not stand forensic analysis due to the election. The absence of such analysis makes me very cautious about accepting anything I am told. I await the Brexit Parties promised dissection to drop through the letter box.

Renationalisation of (potentially) profit making utilities? A defensible, and popular, policy. Labour thanks you for the publicity.

A four day week? Advances in technology and a surplus of labour has to count for something. The recent historical trend is for people to work less. An argument can be made that productivity increases when people work fewer hours. Would a four day week REALLY cost the economy. I wouldn’t trust the Conservative party’s judgement!

Perhaps we should assume that the Conservatives will also include some 2017 policies. The Dementia Tax anyone? 😉

Increases in tax, debt and borrowing? So now Labour are stealing Tory policies rather than the other way round…

Ah yes, the 1970’s oil crisis and global recession and big public spending cuts. Reminds me of something similar that happened very recently under the Tories…

Sir John, some of the points you make are fair, and some of the points I make are deliberately devil’s advocatish. But the key points are that your party really isn’t so very different to Labour (and not necessarily, or demonstrably, better); that Labour can defend their policy prospectus given the general public tend to accept the principle of massive state expenditure (after all, every party’s at it!); and finally, why would anyone trust what the Conservative party say? Conservatives are, very broadly, dishonest, and your leader and PM is both deliberately deceptive AND seemingly oblivious to policy detail, meaning he is doubly untrustworthy!

Your party affiliation notwithstanding, you are broadly trustworthy – no mean feat in politics, especially these days. But this post is party propaganda, and I suspect sensible people shall see it as such.

Simeon, Some very fair, and telling, points. Above all this is the Leave general election – and does the Tory party (not just a few MPs) actually want the UK to be separate from the EU? To have to ask the question demonstrates how untrustworthy the Tory party is.

It seems the parties are falling over each other making spending promises.
How about some saving promises, like scrapping HS2, the independent nuclear deterrent or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (any other quango suggestions anyone?). Can we have some promises about how the next government might reduce the size of the bloated state we all have to pay for?

Yes, Mr Andrews – it is galling that we are being constantly patronised in this way, by politicians wishing to ”buy” our vote. We’re not stupid – but they obviously believe we are. Who really wants to hear these ”spend spend spend” promises from whatever party it may be?
For the good of our country, most of us (excluding the Andys) would forgo those few extra quid in our pockets from a small tax break – and would be more than glad to see the scrapping of vanity projects that please few outside the EU.

Dave Andrews, Attempting to buy our vote – as L Jones points out – is distasteful. It reminds me of the Arab (so I was told) proverb about the Eglish: “The English buy their enemies and sell their friends”. And of course that is exactly the English establishment’s policy on the EU – the EU gets paid, and ordinary people get sold out.

Hilarious interview with Emily Thornbury (famous for her total contempt of patriotic hard working white van men) on ITV just now with Piers Morgan. What a complete joke the Labour position is.

They now support renewing our nuclear deterrent but Corbyn says he would never use it – (so not really any deterrent then just an expensive white elephant). They would negotiate a “good” deal with the EU then put it or remain to the people to decide. But clearly the incentives of the EU would be to offer a deal even worse than remain. Giving the people a remain and remain but worse choice. A clearly gerrymandered referendum with no leave option.

Plus they would clearly bankrupt the nation in no time as you say above. Plus have free movement from all the world with full rights on day one. Then there is the Scottish issue as they would need SNP support. What a sick joke Labour now is even compared to its rather dire past periods. Surely they cannot win? Even the young must be able to grasp this surely?

Binning the nuclear deterrent is a viable position. If we instead spent that money on conventional defence with an emphasis on combatting terrorist threats and guerilla warfare we might be a more valuable ally to the US. Of course, one can’t imagine Labour making this case; they’d rather virtue signal to the peaceniks. Meanwhile, successive UK governments undermine and degrade our military capability.

England could vote Tory but still see itself governed by the Labour/SNP even though much of what SNP MPs vote on nowadays does not affect them or their Scottish constituents. Maybe then the English will sit up and take notice and realise the rotten deal they have been handed by all the main parties, Tories included, who have done absolutely nothing to address either the English Question or the West Lothian Question.

Hopefully a majority of the electorate will not be fooled by Labour’s fundamental ignorance of basic economic principles. How dare they seek to bribe us with our own money and leave the next generations with massive debts.

Brexit has shown that we are living in a benign dictatorship controlled by the two party system that is maintained by FPTP, which in reality is impossible to remove. The evidence – more people voted against Thatcher and Blair yet they achieved large Commons majorities; when we have an outright majority i.e. 52% the deep state takes over. A sensible PR system, not the “miserable” AV, would see the end of the Con/Lab monopoly.

The general election vote can also be viewed as a chance to make a statement on the performance of the incumbent government.

We have had three and a half wasted years, the worst Prime Minister in history who her party allowed to continue in power for far too long and numerous lies, deceits and broken promises.

If you vote for a candidate that represents your views but has little chance of victory at least your voice and those with similar opinions is there to be seen. An outside chance is that a major party could be mortally wounded and go the way of the Whigs.

There are only so many Blairite centre ground parties needed. Labour could be replaced by a version of the old cooperative movement focussed on the working man and his interests but without all the virtue signalling and fashionable metropolitan notions. Conservatives could be replaced by a party that was genuinely Conservative rather that full of careerists with blue rosettes.

Indeed I thought that too. Labour always make people poorer than they would have been (especially after taxes) and Corbyn would do this in a really spectacular way.

The mere prospect of him is already deterring investment and pushing money, wealth, businesses and many wealthy and hardworking people out of the country. But a magic money tree/Father Christmas Steptoe character cannot really win can he?

Martin neither party should get away with Magic Money Tree debt promises. The Lib Dems need to be held with their economic feet to the flames too, they also need to be asked what is the cost to the United Kingdom of their agreements with the Greens and Plaid (what have they promised them?)

“The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said the Conservatives’ investment plans would amount to an extra £20bn a year, and Labour’s to £55bn a year.” says the Guardian based on what’s already been said.

Corbyn and Johnson cannot just keep saying we’ll do this that and the other without telling us how much. Refuting is pointless we all know spending is pledged and we want to know precisely how much and who is paying the bill over what time period and we’re not talking about fantasy UK resident billionaires who will pack up as quick as a flash.

Isn’t it a simpler question, apart from the money, as to HOW they would achieve such nationalisation as a member of the EU which is their stated aim – to remain?
Another might be whether the EU has approved such a spending budget? Although not in the Eurozone, our ‘budgets’ are still ‘run past’ the EU to ensure that we’re not deviating from the projekt nor that they contain anything which may harm it.
We’ve all seen, from both cons and labour, that ‘manifestos’ & promises are meaningless, as is the plebs vote. We no longer live in a democracy. The aim appears to be to return another majority remain Parliament, with ‘remainers’ being parachuted in against local constituency wishes, along with those who voted to hand control to the EU. We’ve noticed that your party no longer refers to leaving the EU but the nebulous ‘Brexit’. The aim is to legitimise the overturning of a democratic mandate to leave & kick the can further down the road whilst our military is subsumed, our territory (fishing & NI) is handed over as Danegelt & we are trapped. It is no more than a deceitful scam to con the public – again. I do consider that we are now under foreign occupation with a Vichy Govt. I do find it odd that a party which puts party for country is asking a party that puts country before party, to stand aside for the sake of their party. Unless things change & people vote for proven anti-EU candidates, Parliament will again consist of 2/3 to 3/4 remainers, and that includes the majority of the con party. It really won’t matter what colour rosette the EU party in Parliament is wearing, just the speed of destruction & swifter descent into civil unrest. It seems that there will be no peaceful way to leave the EU. I’m disappointed that there are too few to stand up for the people, unlike those remembered today at 11.11.11. Boris wasn’t trusted but many believed his ego & hubris would carry through our leaving the EU. What’s happened to no deal eh? Like the previous two con PMs, he has betrayed this country.

Given the insane plans to acquire yet more terrifying levels of debt being supported J Redwood we are right into LOL territory here.
Is that the pitch them ” You have to vote for Brexit because we are not quite as awful as Jeremy Corbyn”

There’s far too much focus on the financial implications of Marxist Labour achieving power. I want debate on the non-financial consequences of extremist politicians and un-elected extremists achieving power and the Tory party are not doing enough to highlight this most terrifying aspect of the rise of Marxist propagators

PR results in a government nobody voted for implementing a programme nobody voted for. What we really need is to remove the centralised control of party candidates (Momentum, CCHQ etc.) and the electoral system that grants privileges only to established parties (TV debates, electoral spending etc.), and to re-establish some proper competing media.

We vote for MPs in separate constituencies.
The party with the most MPs gets a chance to form a Government.
Or it makes an arrangement with other parties to secure a working majority.
We dont add up all the votes cast.
That isn’t how it works.
Under PR a party can get into power with less than your quoted 38%

We do add up all the votes for each party. Imagine this result without constituencies – – Cons 20m / Lab 17m /Nodems 12m /Greens 1m / SNP 1m……So how are you going to assign seats and allot MPs? – Noninations according to Con or Lab Central Office? – Sounds like a nightmare !!

Speaking of staggering bills, I also heard the following in a Brexit Party video. As I mentioned yesterday, under Boris’ Deal we are said to be, for a period of twelve years, potentially liable to the tune of thirty to forty billion pounds of “callable capital” in the event of a Eurozone financial crisis during that period. However, our liability could be as much as 500 billion (Euros, I presume) under a system of joint and several guarantees. Again, none of this would be the case, the Brexit Party says, if we had the clean-break Brexit that we voted for. It seems as though the Labour Party would have the flexibility to backtrack on its pledges, while the Conservatives’ Deal, if what I have understood is all correct, would be making a binding commitment under international law. Can the Party respond?

The pork barrel politics of this election are extreme with all parties telling us how they are going to fritter away our money on great big spending splurges , with Labour splurging more than the others, well no party can out spend Labour, but all the political parties, including the Conservatives, aren’t telling us how they are growing to grow the economy. Selling off our assets to foreigners, with the Chinese buying up British steel today, may get our political class all excited about inward investment, but for myself I believe it is a road to ruin, and not a model for economic development. African nations are already regretting the cost of allowing China ‘invest’ in their counties, so what is the policy to develop and grow our own industries to pay for our spendthrift politicians policies?

Off topic, the anti-Farage headlines on the Daily Telegraph website have annoyed me enough to send them this short letter:

“The Tory party does not own Brexit; most of the Tory party opposed Brexit, and truth be told many would still prefer to stop Brexit if they could find a way to do that with minimal political damage for their party. It will be recalled that Nigel Farage made the mistake of trusting them, and retired from politics after we had voted for Brexit; it is only the Tory betrayal of Brexit that has brought him back to get in their way at this general election.”

Meanwhile, as far as I know nobody has yet pointed out that the EU’s Court of Justice would be the ultimate arbiter in the disagreement between Boris Johnson and Stephen Barclay about the requirements for customs checks or declarations or other paperwork when businesses in Northern Ireland sent goods to the rest of the UK:

I will just add that the UK Supreme Court found against Boris Johnson and the Scottish courts found against Boris Johnson and I would not put any money on the EU’s supreme court deciding to agree with Boris Johnson.

The comments section following the condescending article in the DT about Farage by the genius who gave us the disastrous manifesto of the last election is a good read. The comments in support of the BP are many, argued with evidence and literate. The support is ad hominem, including accusations of antisemitism, and could have been written by students.

Indeed. Lawyer and judges, in general, suffer from ‘group think’ on this and other issues, just as BBC journalists do on nearly every issue (invariably they are totally wrong). Just as, to a man with a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. So to lawyers every issue seems to require more laws, more regulations, more court levels, more courts, more fees, more time, more inquiries and more legal ambiguity and uncertainty. So more EU is a veritable bonanza for them.

I can just see the headlines if Labour win the election. The media will claim the Conservatives lost because they pushed Brexit. No, the Conservatives may lose because they weren’t really leaving and were trying to fool the electorate with their meaningless claims.

How many people do you think really care about Brexit now? I know I used to but am now sick to death of it. Even I don’t care anymore. Listening to people being interviewed on the box, there is no hope really. Half the country are half-wits but they all have the vote. They don’t think about anything. They don’t research anything. They don’t listen to anyone. They have their weird world view and vote pretty much as they always voted. Pick a hundred people at random and ask them ‘Is Boris’ agreement real Brexit or Brexit In Name Only’ and most of them will respond with ‘uh?’

Mike Wilson, What an obnoxiously arrogant rant. Every one of your criticisms could be applied to you also, because you invoke no principles.

Universal suffrage is valuable in its own right precisely because it works better than the alternative: banning some voters because they disagree with your views of what is acceptable. Your viewpoint is the road to totalitarianism.

I continue to care very deeply about Brexit, and everyone I know who voted Leave does too. But now it’s also about democracy. We were offered a binary choice by Parliament, and Parliament has refused to implement what we chose. That is wrong, unfair, and anti-democratic.

Boris has increased spending significantly already, and has no intentions of living within his means.

And he is promising to increase net immigration even more, in complete disregard for the circa 70 % of the voters that want to see it significantly reduced.

Any faith in democracy left is going to disappear soon if none of the main parties are prepared to represent what vast numbers of people think.
– Live within your means
– Immigration at 50 K per year or lower
– Stop treating the NHS like a religion and force radical improvement including handing power to patients
– Protect our national intellectual property
– Challenge the lazy chattering classes views on so many things

Really I am surprised you are nodding along to the party John.

Really wish Dom had engaged with people like me before coming up with his agenda. He is a good bloke, but has blinkers of his own if only he would admit it.

Fresh air needed. This bureaucratic nanny state, Stalinist lite, of the political bubble is not good for any of us.

Derek Henry, Brexit is about leaving the EU treaties resulting in the UK being a totally separate political and legal state from the EU. Only. Brexit cannot be hijacked by you or any Remain to suit your different hobby-horses.

Although I do not agree with the Conservatives of today regarding many issues and agree with much that labour voices ,we can not yet again go along with false promises and mounting debt. I think Jeremy Corbyn is an ideal modern PM, but here in Manchester the others are unruly, vocal, without the intelligence to argue at cause and grab for all they can get with the pretence that those who have just got into work should get the same as those highly qualified with many years hard experience. I will never vote labour again due to the mess they made of the NHS in the 1990’s which had far reaching consequences. The staff were dumped but had the experience to avoid the present disaster.

The impression I get from entries today is that few believe that Labour have any financial credibility. You would need to be an out and out marxist to vote for them, though I concede that many will vote Labour out of a lifetime habit.

From where I stand the Conservative look disorganised, unrealistic, and in the case of WA2, dishonest. They are selling the thought that if you do not vote for them you will get Corbyn. This is a very negative attitude to take. A vote for them guarantees WA2, which I described yesterday as the bastard son of May’s WA1. This is not Brexit. Brexit is the raison d’etre of this election so think about offering the real thing and not a fake.

On the subjects of Health, Education, Defence, and Infrastructure, all we need to know is that the problems are recognised with the intention to rectify them, and wild promises of vast sums of our money will be met with derision. We know you are trying to buy votes. Those with half a brain know there is no Aladins Lamp, and to suggest it demeans the process of government and destroys trust. We are at a point where we wish to vote in those we can trust to do the job.

I now note that Nigel has made a generous offer not to contest 317 seats that had a Conservative MP. It is now down to Boris to ensure that those 317 constituencies have a Conservative candidate who is committed to Brexit, no more fifth columnists a la Soubrey and many others. It is also important for Boris to recognise that there are many leave constituencies in the North And Midlands who would never vote Conservative but have demonstrated that they can vote Brexit Party as they did in the EU election. A Tory candidate would only dilute the leave vote so they should stay out of contention. When I see this happen I will begin to believe that the Conservative Party is putting country first and thinking logically.

Blimey. You actually believe the Tory party is capable of putting country before party. I hate to break it to you, but the selection of PPCs is already well advanced. I wouldn’t get your hopes up that there are any Redwoods amongst the newbloods. Just more Tory loyalists willing to do or say anything that gets them one step closer to the trappings of office. Still, at least they can be relied upon to vote for BJ’s great deal that now has the endorsement of one N. Farage.

Off topic, JR, given that the Brexit Party has decided not to endanger Theresa May’s 26,457 majority in Maidenhead, do you know whether the Tories will be reciprocating by giving the Brexit Party a clear run in nearby Slough, where a majority voted to leave the EU?

The Tories have just announced their candidate in Leave constituency Hartlepool to stand against Richard Tice, of the BP. What a shower. Farage has demonstrated enormous courage and wisdom and magnanimity, and this is how the Tories reward it. They do not apparently have principles or a shred of decency. This will only reflect badly on them.

Farage has hit the ball very decisively into Boris’s court and he should be extremely careful how he plays the next shot. It would appear he has hit is straight in the net and lost the point. How foolish.

Andy, Leave means complete separation from the EU. Therefore neither May’s WA, nor the Boris WA are Leave. You don’t get to re-define what Leave is after the vote, especially since both the Remain and Leave campaigns were quite clear that Leave meant leaving the EU treaties and not re-joining.

To Nationalise a Company is to place it under the direct control of the Government.
Just how many Labour MPs have the experience, knowledge and expertise to manage such an undertaking? Ditto for the Conservatives and LibDems et al.
It is of no surprise that so many socialist regimes have all failed in their “Grand Plans” to govern and to run the Utilities and the Transport networks among others.
However, I do wonder why investment in those industries is not limited to the majority of ownership being held in British hands.
These days there are too many Foreign enterprises owning our Utilities and other companies vital to our infrastructure and defence. It is a matter of concern.

“Just how many Labour MPs have the experience, knowledge and expertise to manage such an undertaking?”

None I imagine, anyway (as it would not be there money they were wasting and mismanaging) why would they even try to run them well? This especially given their links with state sector unions? Only about one Shadow Government Minister can speak in full coherent sentences after all – and he is a dire remoaner and lawyer.

I think you make a good point BillM – whilst one has the feeling that say rail travel couldn’t get any worse, and it’s successfully nationalised in other countries – can we here in the UK do it successfully? That’s not clear.

You say Labour presided over a ‘huge credit expansion’. One does not know whether to laugh or cry.

The Tories have doubled the national debt – I realise they inherited a deficit of £150 billion a year but they have only played at getting that figure down – over the last 9 years.

But, and this is what really makes me smile, about once a week an article is posted on here asking the BOE to cut the already ludicrously low base rate and get everyone in the country borrowing to buy a new car.

Of course Labour’s costs are off the chart – they want to bugger everything up. Labour doesn’t have the intelligence to run a capitalist system so as far as they’re concerned if they don’t know how to work it…..smash it.

Interestingly we now see Farage has dropped us flat on our faces. Just more reason why voting in this election is utterly pointless.

As far as I can see nearly every party is promising to put us several trillion pounds further into debt through pursuing zero carbon policy. An extra trillion here or there looks like small beer in comparison.

Blah! Blah! Blah!. Promises about this or that from the Tory party are nothing to do with the country, it’s all to do with protecting and preserving the party.

As with Brexit. Boris will betray it with his warmed over May surrender and Sir John will probably go along with the election rhetoric because the party comes first. Tories think they are the country so when they are accused of ‘party before country’, the phrase is meaningless to them.

I think a few reality checks are in order here and in all fairness this ought to be an informed debate. I agree with what you say about the profligacy of the 1970s Labour government – I remember it. I think you are “forgetting” to mention that the deficit in 2010 was caused in no ssmall part by the absurd amounts of money required to refloat the economy after the bank collapses in 2008-9. Both main parties had been all about de-regulation and getting government off the back of business and the bank collapse was a consequence of deregulation. Finally, while we know that Jeremy Corbyn serving as prime minister would be about as suitable as Herod the Great running an infant daycare centre, it is meaningless to talk in more than generalities about Labour’s spending plans until we have been told what they are.

I voted to leave the EU by the way and I intend to vote (etc ed) I am simply putting these points to you in the interests of a sensible debate; a sensible debate which this country has almost forgotten how to have. Thank you for not disabling comments and (just in case) for reading what I said.

We miss listening to Barnier 50 times per day don’t we. When will this awful Election end?

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.